PDA

View Full Version : Angry Colin Powell wants answers on Iraq WMD lies



Roger Perry
02-18-2011, 07:36 AM
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/021611powellafp-300x243.jpg (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/38813/021611powellafp) Former Secretary of States Colin Powell: He's not happy (AFP)

Ex-secretary of state Colin Powell called on the CIA and Pentagon to explain how he was given unreliable information which proved key to the US case for invading Iraq, the Guardian reported Wednesday.
Powell’s landmark speech to the United Nations on February 5, 2003, cited intelligence about Iraq leader Saddam Hussein’s bioweapons programme gained from a defector, codenamed Curveball.
But he has now admitted that he lied to topple the dictator, in an interview with the Guardian.
“It has been known for several years that the source called Curveball was totally unreliable,” Powell told the British newspaper.
“The question should be put to the CIA and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) as to why this wasn’t known before the false information was put into the (report) sent to Congress, the president’s state of the union address and my 5 February presentation to the UN.”

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/38813

dnf777
02-18-2011, 08:54 AM
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/021611powellafp-300x243.jpg (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/38813/021611powellafp) Former Secretary of States Colin Powell: He's not happy (AFP)

Ex-secretary of state Colin Powell called on the CIA and Pentagon to explain how he was given unreliable information which proved key to the US case for invading Iraq, the Guardian reported Wednesday.
Powell’s landmark speech to the United Nations on February 5, 2003, cited intelligence about Iraq leader Saddam Hussein’s bioweapons programme gained from a defector, codenamed Curveball.
But he has now admitted that he lied to topple the dictator, in an interview with the Guardian.
“It has been known for several years that the source called Curveball was totally unreliable,” Powell told the British newspaper.
“The question should be put to the CIA and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) as to why this wasn’t known before the false information was put into the (report) sent to Congress, the president’s state of the union address and my 5 February presentation to the UN.”

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/38813

Popcorn is in the microwave Roger! This will be good. First, lets attack the loyalties and credibility of Gen. Powell. Maybe even say he wore a "costume" for the better part of 30 years?? The far right has been caught with their pants down (figuratively speaking only, in this case) and will divert, deny, and wiggle away from this the best they can. We won't forget though....we'll be paying for it for generations to come.

Roger Perry
02-18-2011, 09:30 AM
Popcorn is in the microwave Roger! This will be good. First, lets attack the loyalties and credibility of Gen. Powell. Maybe even say he wore a "costume" for the better part of 30 years?? The far right has been caught with their pants down (figuratively speaking only, in this case) and will divert, deny, and wiggle away from this the best they can. We won't forget though....we'll be paying for it for generations to come.


Or, no one on the right will want to comment about it.:shock:

huntinman
02-18-2011, 09:33 AM
Or, no one on the right will want to comment about it.:shock:

How much dust did you have to brush off of this? Come on find something that hasn't been beat to death already.

Roger Perry
02-18-2011, 10:03 AM
How much dust did you have to brush off of this? Come on find something that hasn't been beat to death already.

Well, lets see---- The story about "curveball" came out on February 15th 2011. And General Powell's responce to that was February 16th 2011 and todays date is February 18th, 2011 so the dust was what 2 days old and has not had time to settle yet.;-)

Colin Powell demands answers over Curveball's WMD lies

Former US secretary of state asks why CIA failed to warn him over Iraqi defector who has admitted fabricating WMD evidence




Ed Pilkington (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/edpilkington) in New York, Helen Pidd (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/helenpidd) in Berlin and Martin Chulov (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/martin-chulov)
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Wednesday 16 February 2011 21.45 GMT Colin Powell (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/colin-powell), the US secretary of state at the time of the Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iraq) invasion, has called on the CIA (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cia) and Pentagon to explain why they failed to alert him to the unreliability of a key source behind claims of Saddam Hussein's bio-weapons capability.
Responding to the Guardian's revelation that the source, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi or "Curveball (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/curveball)" as his US and German handlers called him, admitted fabricating evidence of Iraq's secret biological weapons programme, Powell said that questions should be put to the US agencies involved in compiling the case for war.
In particular he singled out the CIA and the Defence Intelligence Agency – the Pentagon's military intelligence arm. Janabi, an Iraqi defector, was used as the primary source by the Bush administration to justify invading Iraq in March 2003. Doubts about his credibility circulated before the war and have been confirmed by his admission this week that he lied.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/16/colin-powell-cia-curveball

BrianW
02-18-2011, 10:08 AM
The BND traveled to a Gulf city, believed to be Dubai, to speak with his former boss at the Military Industries Commission in Iraq, Dr. Bassil Latif.

Latif strongly denied al-Janabi's claim of mobile bioweapons trucks and another allegation that 12 people had died during an accident at a secret bioweapons facility in Baghdad, according to the Guardian.

German officials confronted al-Janabi with his boss’s denial and did not contact him again until the end of May 2002, al-Janabi told the Guardian. Despite his earlier disputed statements, al-Janabi said, German authorities continued to take him seriously.

The BND continued to cooperate with the trained chemical engineer, and the false statements were eventually passed on to senior US policymakers by the intelligence services.


So the Germans (BND) decided (at that time) that al-Janabi was more credible than his old boss.

Imo, sort of like when an mob informant implicates a higher up in a crime, the cops go to that guy and he denies it (Surprise) but the cops continue to use the informant anyway. The info is passed on to another agency who accepts it at face value, rather than vetting it themselves, based on the reliability of the other agency, not necessarily the informant himself.
Then it finally gets to court and the informant then admits that he perjured himself from the beginning.
So does that imply the whole case was made in bad faith or that the informant was an exceptionally good liar?

dnf777
02-18-2011, 10:08 AM
The BND traveled to a Gulf city, believed to be Dubai, to speak with his former boss at the Military Industries Commission in Iraq, Dr. Bassil Latif.

Latif strongly denied al-Janabi's claim of mobile bioweapons trucks and another allegation that 12 people had died during an accident at a secret bioweapons facility in Baghdad, according to the Guardian.

German officials confronted al-Janabi with his boss’s denial and did not contact him again until the end of May 2002, al-Janabi told the Guardian. Despite his earlier disputed statements, al-Janabi said, German authorities continued to take him seriously.

The BND continued to cooperate with the trained chemical engineer, and the false statements were eventually passed on to senior US policymakers by the intelligence services.


So the Germans (BND) decided (at that time) that al-Janabi was more credible than his old boss.

Imo, sort of like when an mob informant implicates a higher up in a crime, the cops go to that guy and he denies it (Surprise) but the cops continue to use the informant anyway. The info is passed on to another agency who accepts it at face value, rather than vetting it themselves, based on the reliability of the other agency, not necessarily the informant himself.
Then it finally gets to court and the informant then admits that he perjured himself from the beginning.
So does that imply the whole case was made in bad faith or that the informant was an exceptionally good liar?

...........huh..........???

You really want to bring up the issue of taking our European allies word on this matter??

paul young
02-18-2011, 11:58 AM
The BND traveled to a Gulf city, believed to be Dubai, to speak with his former boss at the Military Industries Commission in Iraq, Dr. Bassil Latif.

Latif strongly denied al-Janabi's claim of mobile bioweapons trucks and another allegation that 12 people had died during an accident at a secret bioweapons facility in Baghdad, according to the Guardian.

German officials confronted al-Janabi with his boss’s denial and did not contact him again until the end of May 2002, al-Janabi told the Guardian. Despite his earlier disputed statements, al-Janabi said, German authorities continued to take him seriously.

The BND continued to cooperate with the trained chemical engineer, and the false statements were eventually passed on to senior US policymakers by the intelligence services.


So the Germans (BND) decided (at that time) that al-Janabi was more credible than his old boss.

Imo, sort of like when an mob informant implicates a higher up in a crime, the cops go to that guy and he denies it (Surprise) but the cops continue to use the informant anyway. The info is passed on to another agency who accepts it at face value, rather than vetting it themselves, based on the reliability of the other agency, not necessarily the informant himself.
Then it finally gets to court and the informant then admits that he perjured himself from the beginning.
So does that imply the whole case was made in bad faith or that the informant was an exceptionally good liar?



i have to wonder if the families of the sevicemen killed, wounded or MIA see it the way you do.

what a FIASCO!

and then there's the $ cost to consider., which grows by the day.......-Paul

Uncle Bill
02-18-2011, 12:01 PM
...........huh..........???

You really want to bring up the issue of taking our European allies word on this matter??


Oh hell no...we'd rather take the words of a batch of towelheads like you seem to do consistantly.

You must have been one of Bagdad Bob's favorite listeners. What a guppy you are.

UB

road kill
02-18-2011, 12:51 PM
...........huh..........???

You really want to bring up the issue of taking our European allies word on this matter??

Who's word are YOU taking??


RK

Duck Blind
02-18-2011, 12:56 PM
Popcorn is in the microwave Roger! This will be good. First, lets attack the loyalties and credibility of Gen. Powell. Maybe even say he wore a "costume" for the better part of 30 years?? The far right has been caught with their pants down (figuratively speaking only, in this case) and will divert, deny, and wiggle away from this the best they can. We won't forget though....we'll be paying for it for generations to come.

I hope I am missing something here but...
When a man or woman dies wearing their uniform, do you still call it a costume?

Clay Rogers
02-18-2011, 01:12 PM
I hope I am missing something here but...
When a man or woman dies wearing their uniform, do you still call it a costume?


You are. Its called sarcasm. Dave is just trying to say that us conservatives will say anything to distance ourselves from the General. And I really hope he is wrong.

Roger Perry
02-18-2011, 01:28 PM
I see the righties here dancing all around evading the subject of the thread "General Powell demands answers from CIA, Pentagon and DIA about the WMDs lies. But that is not surprising.;-)

Clay Rogers
02-18-2011, 01:38 PM
I see the righties here dancing all around evading the subject of the thread "General Powell demands answers from CIA, Pentagon and DIA about the WMDs lies. But that is not surprising.;-)


I am not dancing around anything Roger. I don't know who lied or is lying now. I think it is pretty evident that they did have WMD's at one time. Did they have them in 2003? Doesnt look like it. But I don't know who to blame, if there is anyone to blame. I do know that you posting a link about this same damn topic weekly isn't going to change anything. We went to war, we are still there and I don't know when we will be home. If you want to do something productive, why not pack a care package and mail it to some service man over there fighting the war you like to bitch about.

Roger Perry
02-18-2011, 01:45 PM
I am not dancing around anything Roger. I don't know who lied or is lying now. I think it is pretty evident that they did have WMD's at one time. Did they have them in 2003? Doesnt look like it. But I don't know who to blame, if there is anyone to blame. I do know that you posting a link about this same damn topic weekly isn't going to change anything. We went to war, we are still there and I don't know when we will be home. If you want to do something productive, why not pack a care package and mail it to some service man over there fighting the war you like to bitch about.

This is current news not something I am dragging up from the past. These articles were written on the 15th of February 2011 and answered by General Powell on the 16th of February, 2011. But one thing for sure Bush43 lied about WMD.



Published on Saturday, January 10, 2004 by CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtml)
Saddam's Ouster Planned In '01?

The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq, including the use of American troops, within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001 -- not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks as has been previously reported. http://www.commondreams.org/images/startquote.gif
O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be invaded. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this. '"
http://www.commondreams.org/images/endquote.gif

That's what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first interview about his time as a White House insider. O'Neill talks to Correspondent Lesley Stahl in the interview, to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, Jan. 11 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0110-03.htm

BonMallari
02-18-2011, 01:45 PM
I am not dancing around anything Roger. I don't know who lied or is lying now. I think it is pretty evident that they did have WMD's at one time. Did they have them in 2003? Doesnt look like it. But I don't know who to blame, if there is anyone to blame. I do know that you posting a link about this same damn topic weekly isn't going to change anything. We went to war, we are still there and I don't know when we will be home. If you want to do something productive, why not pack a care package and mail it to some service man over there fighting the war you like to bitch about.

To Roger



http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u165/epullen_photos/owned.jpg

ducknwork
02-18-2011, 02:28 PM
I hope I am missing something here but...
When a man or woman dies wearing their uniform, do you still call it a costume?


You are. Its called sarcasm. Dave is just trying to say that us conservatives will say anything to distance ourselves from the General. And I really hope he is wrong.

You guys are both missing something. DNF was told on another thread that his uniform was nothing more than a costume to him. Pretty disrespectful on the part of the other involved party, IMO, so don't go blasting Dave on this one. He's got plenty of other things that you can blast him about though, if you so desire.;)

ducknwork
02-18-2011, 02:32 PM
I see the righties here dancing all around evading the subject of the thread "General Powell demands answers from CIA, Pentagon and DIA about the WMDs lies. But that is not surprising.;-)

All I have to say regarding his demands and the quote that you put in your post is that:

1. Hindsight is always 20/20.
2. It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.

road kill
02-18-2011, 02:33 PM
I see the righties here dancing all around evading the subject of the thread "General Powell demands answers from CIA, Pentagon and DIA about the WMDs lies. But that is not surprising.;-)


Maybe General Powell should have been a little more thorough before he signed his name.
IF he is now 100% sure he was duped.


RK

Blackstone
02-18-2011, 03:00 PM
Maybe General Powell should have been a little more thorough before he signed his name.
IF he is now 100% sure he was duped.


RK

I have a feeling Gen. Powell was just being the good soldier he was trained to be. He certainly had his reservation, and tried to talk Bush out of going into Iraq. But, once the decision was made, he saluted smartly and charged up the hill (to paraphrase Oliver North). I don’t think he ever believed the administration would leave him to be the fall guy, and push him to the sidelines.

I guess he should have been more thorough before he signed up for the job.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2042072.ece

huntinman
02-18-2011, 03:07 PM
He's always tried to be on the side that has power, as he is doing here. He saw the writing on the wall during the election and supported Obama, even though he claimed to be a Republican. Now, he's trying to say he was duped. He is as full of crap as all the rest of the politicians...

dnf777
02-18-2011, 03:30 PM
I hope I am missing something here but...
When a man or woman dies wearing their uniform, do you still call it a costume?

Yes, you missed UB telling me I "wore a costume" and something else to the effect that I burn flags or something similar...all because I have a differing political view that he does. I've learned that nothing is above attacks here on POTUS, if you dare to disagree with some of the elders here. I'm not sure why others bring up my military service in that regard, or any other.

I have not, nor will I ever say anything but "thank you" for military service, to those I agree with...or disagree.

I sincerely apologize if you took that the wrong way. It was in reference to another's disrespectful comment.

Dave F

Cody Covey
02-18-2011, 03:33 PM
Yes, you missed UB telling me I "wore a costume" and something else to the effect that I burn flags or something similar...all because I have a differing political view that he does. I've learned that nothing is above attacks here on POTUS, if you dare to disagree with some of the elders here. I'm not sure why others bring up my military service in that regard, or any other.

I have not, nor will I ever say anything but "thank you" for military service, to those I agree with...or disagree.

I sincerely apologize if you took that the wrong way. It was in reference to another's disrespectful comment.

Dave FTo be fair to the rest of "us", I'd say most of our views are "different" as well to UB:)

cotts135
02-18-2011, 03:57 PM
To be fair to the rest of "us", I'd say most of our views are "different" as well to UB:)

LOL Would that make him a radical??????????????:p:p

Cody Covey
02-18-2011, 03:58 PM
LOL Would that make him a radical??????????????:p:p

I'm sure it makes him a centrist!

BrianW
02-18-2011, 04:04 PM
I see the righties here dancing all around evading the subject of the thread "General Powell demands answers from CIA, Pentagon and DIA about the WMDs lies. But that is not surprising.;-)

In strict response to the thread subject, General Powell, add Ret., is now a private citizen and has no more right to demand anything from the CIA, Pentagon & DIA than you or I do.

As far as the CIA et al trusting the BND's source of information, imo, what would make Dr. Latif's veracity automatically more believable tha all-Janabi's? There were a lot of people that were covering for Saddam back then, and as "the boss" he might have all the more reason to lie and protect his hide from possible payback, especially if he still had relatives still in Iraq.

Should the CIA etc have vetted the info on their own? Obviously NOW, yes. Monday AM QBing as posted earlier. A lot of people got played because of this now admitted liar, Powell among them.
If you want to charge al-Janabi as a war criminal, fine by me. .

Clay Rogers
02-18-2011, 04:12 PM
You guys are both missing something. DNF was told on another thread that his uniform was nothing more than a costume to him. Pretty disrespectful on the part of the other involved party, IMO, so don't go blasting Dave on this one. He's got plenty of other things that you can blast him about though, if you so desire.;)


Actually Duck, I didn't miss anything. Thats why I took up for Dave by pointing out that it was sarcasm. And I didn't blast anyone. Now, you can go back to being Potus Police.

Clay Rogers
02-18-2011, 04:23 PM
This is current news not something I am dragging up from the past. These articles were written on the 15th of February 2011 and answered by General Powell on the 16th of February, 2011. But one thing for sure Bush43 lied about WMD.



Published on Saturday, January 10, 2004 by CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtml)
Saddam's Ouster Planned In '01?

The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq, including the use of American troops, within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001 -- not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks as has been previously reported. http://www.commondreams.org/images/startquote.gif
O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be invaded. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this. '"
http://www.commondreams.org/images/endquote.gif

That's what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first interview about his time as a White House insider. O'Neill talks to Correspondent Lesley Stahl in the interview, to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, Jan. 11 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0110-03.htm



Edit your post all you like Roger. Doesn't change anything. You have been posting crap about GWB for several years now. What are you trying to do, get him kicked out of the White House? Guess what? He is not there anymore. I, or should I say WE all get you didn't like him. So, move on, find something else to talk about. And while your at it, why dont you get away from that computer screen for awhile and enjoy the sun. Vitamin K might help you think better.

Clay Rogers
02-18-2011, 04:29 PM
I have a feeling Gen. Powell was just being the good soldier he was trained to be. He certainly had his reservation, and tried to talk Bush out of going into Iraq. But, once the decision was made, he saluted smartly and charged up the hill (to paraphrase Oliver North). I don’t think he ever believed the administration would leave him to be the fall guy, and push him to the sidelines.

I guess he should have been more thorough before he signed up for the job.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2042072.ece

Actually, to be a good soldier, you must also ask questions about things that don't make sense to you. He had another choice he could have made if/when he knew the intel was incorrect. He could have resigned his commission and retired. He didn't have to lie to anyone, if that is what he did.

TxHillHunter
02-18-2011, 04:52 PM
Or, no one on the right will want to comment about it.:shock:

Some of us work Roger......

But I'll be happy to reply as a "righty"..... but it's just my opinion.

This one got screwed up, as many "intelligence" matters have over the years. My FIL, who was OSI during Vietnam and a retired full bird once told me "Intelligence is an inexact science because it relies heavily on human action and insight." In my words, it's educated guessing......and when it goes bad, it's DAMN costly for many.

The hind-sight facts are, we know Saddam used gas on his own citizens AND we know after the invasion dust settled that no WMD were found. So, the intelligence community screwed the pooch and those charged with making decisions based on the information available made a bad call...in hind sight.

It's not the first time a prez will own a decision like this (right, wrong or indifferent - Bush owns it), nor will it be the last time....guaranteed. But the grandstanding that some perform saying they "know' that Bush fabricated the WMD thing is a bunch of crap....YOU WEREN'T THERE, in the room when the "intelligence" was being evaluated and "expert opinions' being expressed....so you DON'T know. You are entitled to your opinion, but stating it as fact is over the top.

I realize that folks on both sides of the aisle are more than happy to ignore reality and act as if their preferred camp doesn't make mistakes.....but until humans no longer are in charge of the intelligence and the decisions, then bad calls will get made, and people will die....both soldiers and innocents will die, regardless of whether the decision is to invade (Iraq) or not (those killed by the Kosovo Liberation Army and the Yugoslavs before NATO action occurred).

There you go.....you can stop trolling for a response.

As a sidebar - I've always wondered why the same "intelligence community" that was in charge prior to 9/11 would be trusted to get it right on Iraq. I've come to the sad conclusion that it's the best we have, and it's not perfect....just like everything else.

Blackstone
02-18-2011, 05:08 PM
Actually, to be a good soldier, you must also ask questions about things that don't make sense to you. He had another choice he could have made if/when he knew the intel was incorrect. He could have resigned his commission and retired. He didn't have to lie to anyone, if that is what he did.

I'm not saying he lied. I think he believed what he was saying at the time. However, according to the article at the link I posted, he didn't want to go into Iraq, and he tried to talk Bush out of it. But, once the decision was made, he put on the united front, and supported his boss. I wouldn't expect him to jump ship as soon as things started to south. However, I think he would have if he had known the whole thing was a lie.

dnf777
02-18-2011, 05:14 PM
I agree with Blackstone. While not perfect (who is?), I think Gen. Powell (ret) is an honorable man. He was still wearing his soldier hat, or at least "charging the hill" as ordered when he read the information handed to him.

I do not believe that those who wrote that piece, and assembled and chose the intel that went into it, acted honorably or without influence. There were enough doubts cast at the time, notwithstanding Joe Wilson, that I would call that very shoddy work at best.....manipulative at worst. I don't know where the truth lies, but I think its somewhere between those two.

Roger Perry
02-18-2011, 05:51 PM
Actually, to be a good soldier, you must also ask questions about things that don't make sense to you. He had another choice he could have made if/when he knew the intel was incorrect. He could have resigned his commission and retired. He didn't have to lie to anyone, if that is what he did.

No, a good soldier obeys and does what he is told to do by his superiors.;-) Haven't you ever heard the saying:
"Ours is not to reason why Ours is but to do and die"

TxHillHunter
02-18-2011, 06:20 PM
No, a good soldier obeys and does what he is told to do by his superiors.;-) Haven't you ever heard the saying:
"Ours is not to reason why Ours is but to do and die"

Looks like Colin may have forgotten that one....

Roger Perry
02-18-2011, 08:03 PM
Looks like Colin may have forgotten that one....

No, he did as he was told to do, stand up in front of the world and say Iraq had WMD and convince the people of the U.S. and Congress that what he said was the truth as orchrestated by the Bush administration.

road kill
02-18-2011, 08:11 PM
No, a good soldier obeys and does what he is told to do by his superiors.;-) Haven't you ever heard the saying:
"Ours is not to reason why Ours is but to do and die"

I never saw that in the UCMJ.

Could you show that to me???



RK

Roger Perry
02-18-2011, 08:46 PM
I never saw that in the UCMJ.

Could you show that to me???



RK

If General Powell (ret) was ordered to stand up in front of Congress, the U.N. or the people of the United States of America and say to them that Saddam Hussein had WMD by the President of the United States (his superior) he would have to obey or be subject to a court martial.

Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

dnf777
02-18-2011, 08:58 PM
I never saw that in the UCMJ.

Could you show that to me???



RK

Am I missing something here, or was Colin Powell a civilian when he testified at the UN regarding WMDs?

Last time I read the UCMJ, it applied to military personnel only.

WTF does the UCMJ have to do with this? (sorry for going Sarah on yer Azz)

Duck Blind
02-18-2011, 09:04 PM
Yes, you missed UB telling me I "wore a costume" and something else to the effect that I burn flags or something similar...all because I have a differing political view that he does. I've learned that nothing is above attacks here on POTUS, if you dare to disagree with some of the elders here. I'm not sure why others bring up my military service in that regard, or any other.

I have not, nor will I ever say anything but "thank you" for military service, to those I agree with...or disagree.

I sincerely apologize if you took that the wrong way. It was in reference to another's disrespectful comment.

Dave F

Thanks for clearing it up. The uniform means everything to me...20 years of service and still plugging along. Thanks for your service as well!!!

ducknwork
02-18-2011, 09:12 PM
Actually Duck, I didn't miss anything. Thats why I took up for Dave by pointing out that it was sarcasm. And I didn't blast anyone. Now, you can go back to being Potus Police.

Sorry, stump, I misunderstood your comment.

BTW, not trying to be the po-po, just trying to stick up for someone who is getting unfairly slighted.

BrianW
02-18-2011, 09:13 PM
If General Powell (ret) was ordered to stand up in front of Congress, the U.N. or the people of the United States of America and say to them that Saddam Hussein had WMD by the President of the United States (his superior) he would have to obey or be subject to a court martial.

Powell retired from military service (1993) long before being appointed the SecState and as such, could not have been subject to courts martial for refusing to speak about WMD's. Fired/dismissed maybe.
If you're going to talk crap, at least get your piles straight. :rolleyes:

M&K's Retrievers
02-18-2011, 11:27 PM
If you're going to talk crap, at least get your piles straight. :rolleyes:

I'm afraid you are asking too much.